Home > Planning > Planning Policy

PLEASE NOTE: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - Option SET1

Representation ID: 10154

OBJECT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

We Object to Option SET1 given that a review of settlements based upon recognising key facilities / services only would not take into account the immediate context of settlements or their relationship to other settlements, and would therefore not be consistent with the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 10154

Representation ID: 9296

SUPPORT Mr J Bradford

Summary:

SET 1 - Support
Copdock and Washbrook are classed as Hinterland and on the fringe of Ipswich. I agree with Hinterland because of the scoring of facilities.
I disagree about being on the fringe of Ipswich because although it looks close on a map it is more than 5km by road to the nearest shop etc in any direction. This journey by car can take up to 20 minutes at congested times.

More details about Rep ID: 9296

Representation ID: 8689

OBJECT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

[On behalf of Trinity College]
A review of settlements based upon recognising key facilities / services only would not take into account the immediate context of settlements or their relationship to other settlements, and would therefore not be consistent with the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 8689

Representation ID: 8503

OBJECT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

too simplistic

More details about Rep ID: 8503

Representation ID: 8342

SUPPORT Ms Kate Webster

Summary:

Wyverstone should be recategorised as a hamlet/countryside as it does not have the services stated in the Settlement Hierarchy review.

It does not have a public house or food or drinks outlet.
It does not have a baker/butcher/hairdresser/newsagent/bank/ATM/fuel station
It does not have a sports or leaisure facility or allotments

I believe its total point score is therefore only 7

More details about Rep ID: 8342

Representation ID: 7715

OBJECT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

SET2 is better as some places are better connected than others.

More details about Rep ID: 7715

Representation ID: 7443

OBJECT Mrs Gillian West

Summary:

The too simplistic approach ignores natural barriers such as roads, estuaries & railroads which form barriers to cohesive sites and often necessitate lengthy round trips by car, adding further burden to narrow lanes and busy junctions, especially at peak times. Settlements should grow organically according to employment & resident-based need and the ability of local infrastructure, schools & medical services to grow to meet increased need. Tick-box criteria run risk of ignoring reality of local restrictions and requirements.

More details about Rep ID: 7443

Representation ID: 7220

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

The hierarchy proposed is complex but ignores factors such as travel time and capacity of local services e.g. a GP Practice that is already overstretched will not easily provide the required extra capacity. The methodology encourages creeping coalescence - a factor to represent this should be included to provide a fairer representation. However I feel this is the wrong way to determine where new housing developments should be placed.

More details about Rep ID: 7220

Representation ID: 7216

OBJECT Mrs Cindy Hughes

Summary:

Great Waldingfield is NOT a core village - it is a Hinterland village. I believe the scoring system to be inaccurate and that GW should not be 21 as its more than 3.1 miles from Sudbury and more 1.2 miles from a core village.

More details about Rep ID: 7216

Representation ID: 7170

COMMENT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

Services should include the amount of open space and playing fields in the villages.

More details about Rep ID: 7170

Representation ID: 7043

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

In general terms, however interpretation of criteria is key as great Waldingfield appears to score 10 point but is classed as a core village?

More details about Rep ID: 7043

Representation ID: 6924

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

This process and arbitrary scoring system based on unclear criteria without cooperation or consultation is unsound.
However it is necessary. Of the two I would prefer this one as it eliminates the factors of relationship which in equal quantity to their accessibility are factors of diminishing community identity which should be avoided, so it is unfair to promote a communities relevance as a development potential when that is very likely to diminish their identity.
However without some guidance on the proposed scoring and Criteria of this system it is difficult to assess if it is fair.

More details about Rep ID: 6924

Representation ID: 6916

COMMENT Mr & Mrs Martin Steele

Summary:

Any scoring system becomes irrelevant if the services which accumulate the score are already over burdened .Applications in Thorndon have been granted on greenfield sites with meeting the sustainability criteria for NPPF ( no 5 year housing supply in place ) the overriding factor. The local school is already oversubscribed ,as is the High school in Eye .We have traffic and parking problems and yet these services still appear to count as a positive. Going forward the current and projected capacity for services/infrastructure to cope with a development rather than their simple existence should be taken into account.

More details about Rep ID: 6916

Representation ID: 6282

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

no coment

More details about Rep ID: 6282

Representation ID: 4950

OBJECT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

We object to this option.

More details about Rep ID: 4950

Representation ID: 4588

OBJECT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

object

More details about Rep ID: 4588

Representation ID: 4302

OBJECT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

see above

More details about Rep ID: 4302

Representation ID: 3912

COMMENT Mr Alan Squirrell

Summary:

Very obviously, it would be a far better, more democratic, more relevant and more factually accurate, for Individual Parish Councils to have the responsibility to comment here as an ongoing process. To sweep everything into one pile here and consider that any general or statistical fact whatsoever can meaningfully be gleaned is very naïve.
The only factual statement that can possibly be made here is that rural services, indeed, rural roads, are not given the support that they need for sustainability. Cut backs hit rural areas hard, to the point of being prejudiced against.

More details about Rep ID: 3912

Representation ID: 3873

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

Simplistic approach taken that does not reflect the true situation of any settlement. Scoring based on distance to service and facilities , should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated.
No account taken of capacity of a service in scoring ( eg Primary School / shops)
Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence ( ie the erosion of as communities individuality )
We would support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adapted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence

More details about Rep ID: 3873

Representation ID: 3530

OBJECT Mr Richard Howard

Summary:

Village status distorted by scoring system, influences development location.
DON'T AGREE WITH APPROACH TAKEN, scoring based on distance to service and facilities , should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated.
No account taken of capacity of a service in scoring ( eg Primary School / shops ( Sproughton identified as having a P.O. )
Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence ( ie the erosion of as communities individuality )
We would support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adapted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence

More details about Rep ID: 3530

Representation ID: 3381

SUPPORT Mr Adrian James

Summary:

This is the clear and objective method, however it must be applied accurately.

More details about Rep ID: 3381

Representation ID: 3118

SUPPORT Iain Pocock

Summary:

Agree - facility assessment is key and with an aging demographics it is important that villages have adequate infrastructure to support residents and higher order settlements are not always that accessible even when apparently close by due to traffic congestion, public transport, doctors at capacity etc

More details about Rep ID: 3118

Representation ID: 2994

SUPPORT Mr Peter Sutters

Summary:

We feel that this method of assessment is superior to the Option SET2 as it highlights the poor range of facilities and supporting services in Copdock & Washbrook.

More details about Rep ID: 2994

Representation ID: 2919

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

A points system is a reasonable way to divide villages into groups. This is with the proviso that when allocating points eg Schools 2 Points , a note should be taken as to whether a school has places for new pupils. If the school is already full no points should be allocated.

More details about Rep ID: 2919

Representation ID: 2832

SUPPORT Mr Andrew Coxhead

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 2832

Representation ID: 1802

OBJECT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Do not support this as too simplistic an approach.

More details about Rep ID: 1802

Representation ID: 1737

OBJECT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Suggest not supporting this as too simplistic an approach.

More details about Rep ID: 1737

Representation ID: 1694

OBJECT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

More details about Rep ID: 1694

Representation ID: 1519

OBJECT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

The district council no not have control over Key services and the information provided in the various reports can rapidly become historic such as a report on the towns published in February that states Needham Market has a bank when the last bank in the town had already closed. Schools and public transport are county council areas of responsibility. Medical facilities such as GP practices, dental surgeries, pharmacies and opticians are all private enterprises.

More details about Rep ID: 1519

Representation ID: 1490

OBJECT Hugh Pulham Farms Ltd (Mr Anthony C Pulham (Stoke Ash and Thwaite Councillor))

Summary:

We believe as a Parish Council of Stoke Ash and Thwaite that the calculations that the Council have made are incorrect. we believe that Stoke Ash should have 8 points and Thwaite 12 points.

More details about Rep ID: 1490

Representation ID: 1455

OBJECT Barton Willmore Planning P'ship (Mr. Paul Foster)

Summary:

The process within SET1 is insular and does not take into account wider areas. For example, Bramford would not score as highly given the limited facilities in the town. However, it has good sustainable connections to Ipswich. A more broad approach is necessary such as proposed in SET2.

More details about Rep ID: 1455

Representation ID: 1340

COMMENT Mrs helen fawthrop

Summary:

Insufficient detail to comment. The demographic of each settlement is different so must be considered in isolation. The school (if there is one) may already be full therefore its existence is irrelevant..Local shop may be tiny so again may be irrelevant.. We need to be thinking access, roads, congestion and pollution. 5km proximity to a town or urban area, does not mean facilities or services are actually accessible if you congest the roads! There may be a bus stop but is there a bus service??

More details about Rep ID: 1340

Representation ID: 907

SUPPORT Mr Timothy Wilmshurst

Summary:

Key services should be considered directly in relation to the community and not depend on facilities outside to any extent greater than currently obtains.

More details about Rep ID: 907

Representation ID: 530

OBJECT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

RPC considers that this appears to make no sense.

More details about Rep ID: 530

Representation ID: 170

COMMENT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

As the majority age group is over 65 Village Halls and local recreation are very important and should therefore be given higher weighting.

More details about Rep ID: 170

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult